We've already elected a no credential, lying bio President on the Democrat side...so...what's the difference.
Bernie Sanders is running for the GOP? His ideas are still better than any of the obtuse candidates for the GOP.
The difference is we don't elect presidents on either side. I don't give a rat's ass what color hat they wear, I want a person of integrity and we'll never get one as long as so many try to choose one only from their "side."
CMAN, Said his DEM ticket had 2 people running. I was pointing out the obvious, BOTH are a campaign consultants wet dream.
Maybe it's not the job that scares away sane, intelligent well meaning candidates but rather the insane, unintelligent and ill-intending election process. Embellishment (if it's that - still not proven either way) and a matter of semantics with the scholarship - both of which took place 40ish years ago are what the man is being torn apart for? Are we really expecting to elect a saint? I'm not saying that he is "the" candidate but these are hardly the reasons to be dismissing him over imo. These are the distractions that keep the American public from being well informed on the substantial issues that should actually be the topic of discussion. Look at all of the effort we put into talking about trivial garbage rather than his (a candidate's) economic or foreign policy.
No we don't. The non committed 7 % that don't pay attention till election time elect presidents. Eff them
Well informed as in, possessing an elementary school education? Because even grade-school students know the pyramids were not grain silos. Has Ben Carson ever been to the Museum of Natural History? Clearly not.
Maybe my point is lost on you. As insane as it is - I can never quite understand the religious folks beliefs - what does it have to do with a candidates ability to be the POTUS? Why is that so important to you as compared to his ideas on balancing the budget or troop levels overseas? What really matters to you in a candidate? Substance or fluff?
Ben Carson cites the bible when talking about his proposed tax cuts. Is that someone that sounds fit to be POTUS?
I don't care where a candidates policies come from. I just care about their substance. I, as a rule of thumb, can't stand western religions. Still I don't automatically dismiss everything about them as being wrong. Considering such a large part of the American population is Christian it probably isn't the worst idea on his part to use the bible to relate ideas that he has. Now what exactly about his tax ideas are you against? Is it simply the fact that he tied them to the bible? Or do you have some actual substance to your thoughts regarding his proposed tax policies?
And actually allow me to clarify the comment "I don't care where a candidates policies comes from". I consider candidates by the following criteria: 1) the substance of their proposed policies 2) the likelihood they will actually/be able to deliver their proposed policies. 3) the fluff and whether or not it will impact their ability to do the job.
The numbers for his proposed tax plan don't add up. His proposed policy still leaves us with a deficit. To quote Slate, "Biblical taxes were never intended to be a model for a modern, secular tax system." If the guy is basing his policies off the Bible, I shudder to think what else he will impose on the American people.
I would contend that the substance of his policy is a flat tax and the use of the bible to explain it rubs you the wrong way. Regardless it's nice to be talking about something actually pertinent to a candidate rather than meaningless bullshit. It's how people become smarter and more well informed. Thank you.
It rubs me the wrong way because in no way should a Bible analogy be in any way influential of a politician's tax policy, let alone the POTUS policy. To answer your #2, how can Ben Carson deliver anything when he couldn't deliver factual accounts of his own life story? His "autobiography" is a tale of fiction.
Why back to the fluff for? You made quite a valid point regarding the deficit in his tax plan. Do you want to play a game? Tell me which candidate you support and allow me to go to town on items that are inconsequential to their ability to lead our country. I promise you that it's a pointless game that is good for nothing but wasting time. ALL potential candidates have "issues" that can be made a focus when in reality they don't matter. Let's discuss the things that really do like level headed intelligent citizens in order to actually force politicians to answer the real questions that really matter.
Give me some substance; don't give me fluff of stabbing a fourteen year old in the belt buckle, don't give me fluff of what school you might have gotten into or even have gotten a "scholarship" to if you never applied. I remember what I did forty years ago, I remember what kind of person I was forty years ago and those I knew at the time remember me the same way. If this man can't be trusted to give us his biography honestly, how can he be trusted to balance a budget (as if that would ever happen)?
It's up to you to look at the substance 1st and then the fluff 2nd. The things you are focused on he did not (to my knowledge) present as reasons for why he is capable of leading the country. They are things that took place long before he ever considered running. They are distractions being presented by one side of the media. The contentions haven't even been vetted one way or the other. It's all part of the dumb it down media machine that attempts to drive our focus away from those things that are really important. If I'm comparing cars - as a logical person - the 1st things that are wise for me to compare are cost, reliability, safety and gas mileage. Not the colors available or 'coolness' factor. Our government relies upon a well informed public to operate properly. Why, at the height of the information age is the public so poorly informed about our candidates? I don't want Ben Carson answering these stupid questions. I want him explaining in detail how he intends to make up the deficit on his flat tax. I want every candidate stripped of every distraction so that it's as clear as day when they choose to deflect and spin bullshit rather than answer the hard questions. How much more meaningful would debates be if all candidates were given a "just the facts ma'am" line of questioning about what they as president intend to actually "do" if elected.
Sure, the time frame was long ago but the claims were made recently. If he was sixteen when he told us about stabbing the kid in the belt buckle, I'd have no problem, but he's telling that story and the West Point story in the here and now as he tries to become our president. They're often given this line of questioning, the problem is they more often don't even come close to answering the question but use it as a jumping off point for a self-serving monologue. How do you stop that? And I want Carson and every other candidate to be thoroughly grilled by the best investigators about who they are, and if they prove to be pathological liars or even those who just want to embellish their credentials, I don't want them.
Are you sure the claims were made recently? It's my understanding that the claims were made in a book that was published in 1990. That's more than 25 years ago - long before he had any political aspirations. So I really question your contention that these are the statements that he is making to support his bid for president.
